Measuring Retention in HIV Care in the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Impact of Telehealth

Hardships and Perceived Barriers to Medical Care Among Newly Diagnosed People With HIV During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Purpose of the researchA major consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic was a disruption of medical care in the United States. Using cross-sectional data from an ongoing randomized clinical trial, we examined severity of COVID-related hardships and other factors that might have influenced newly diagnosed people with HIV's (PWH's) receipt of care during the initial years of the pandemic (2020-22).Major findingsIn a sample of 29 newly diagnosed PWH presenting for care at three geographically diverse medical clinics in the United States, results showed that most patients (72.4%) reported that obtaining an HIV medical appointment during the pandemic was "easy." Correlational analyses found that COVID-related hardships were significantly related to overall health and functioning, as well as experiences of discrimination.ConclusionsTaken together, these findings align with previous results to show that already vulnerable populations were particularly affected by service disruptions, but that many patients were able to access care despite the pandemic.

The Impact of Telemedicine on Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-Related Clinical Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic exacerbated barriers to care for people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PLWH). The quick uptake of telemedicine in the outpatient setting provided promise for care continuity. In this study, we compared appointment and laboratory no-show rates in an urban outpatient HIV clinic during three time periods: (1) Pre-COVID-19: 9/15/2019-3/14/2020 (predominately in-person), (2) "Early" COVID-19: 3/15/2020-9/14/2020 (predominately telemedicine), and (3) "Later" COVID-19: 9/15/2020-3/14/2021 (mixed in-person/telemedicine). Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated the two study hypotheses: (i) equivalence of Period 2 with Period 1 and of Period 3 with Period 1 and (ii) improved outcomes with telemedicine over in-person visits. No-show rates were 1% in Period 1, 4% in Period 2, and 18% in Period 3. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, individuals had a higher rate of appointment no-shows during Period 2 [OR (90% CI): 7.67 (2.68, 21.93)] and 3 [OR (90% CI): 30.91 (12.83 to 75.06). During the total study period, those with telemedicine appointments were less likely to no-show than those with in-person appointments [OR (95% CI): 0.36 (0.16-0.80), p = 0.012]. There was no statistical difference between telemedicine and in-person appointments for laboratory completion rates. Our study failed to prove that no-show rates before and during the pandemic were similar; in fact, no-show rates were higher during both the early and later pandemic. Overall, telemedicine was associated with lower no-show rates compared to in-person appointments. In future pandemics, telemedicine may be a valuable component to maintain care in PLWH.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Stigma Counseling and HIV Testing Access Interventions to Increase HIV Testing Among Black Sexual Minority Men and Transwomen

Advances in HIV prevention tools have outpaced our ability to ensure equitable access to these tools. Novel approaches to reducing known barriers to accessing HIV prevention, such as stigma and logistical-related factors, are urgently needed. To evaluate the efficacy of a randomized controlled trial with four intervention arms to address barriers to HIV/STI testing uptake (primary outcome) and PrEP use, depression, and HIV test results (secondary outcomes). We tested a 2 × 2 research design: main effect 1-stigma-focused vs. health information evaluation-focused counseling, main effect 2-offering HIV/STI testing appointments in person vs. at home with a counselor via video chat, and the interaction of the main effects. Participants (N = 474) residing in the southeastern USA were screened and enrolled in a longitudinal trial. Intervention efficacy was established using generalized linear modeling with binomial or Poisson distributions. Intervention efficacy demonstrated an increase in HIV/STI testing uptake when testing was made available at home with a counselor via video chat vs. in person (83% vs. 75% uptake, p < .05), and participants were also more likely to test positive for HIV over the course of the study in the at-home condition (14.5% vs. 9.4%, p < .05). Stigma-focused counseling resulted in lower depression scores and greater uptake of PrEP among participants < 30 years of age when compared with health information counseling (15.4% vs. 9.6%, p < .05). In order to prevent further disparities between HIV prevention advances and access to HIV prevention tools, we must prioritize improvements in linking people to care. Novel interventions, such as those proposed here, offer a practical, evidence-based path to addressing long-standing barriers to HIV prevention strategies. Trial registration: NCT03107910.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on retention in care of native and migrant people with HIV in the ICONA cohort

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 pandemic challenged the UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets. How the COVID-19 pandemic affected HIV retention in care and whether it has disproportionally affected migrant people with HIV (PWH) remained to be investigated.

METHODS

PWH in ICONA Cohort in follow-up in each of the study periods were included: 01/09/2019-29/02/2020 (pandemic period) and 01/03/2018-31/08/2018 (historical period, as a control). Risk of temporary loss to follow-up (LTFU, defined as no data recorded for a person for one year) was analyzed by logistic regression, with migrant status as the main exposure variable. Difference in difference (DID) analysis was applied to evaluate the effect of COVID-19 pandemic in the different risk of LTFU between natives and migrants.

RESULTS

8864 (17.1% migrants) and 8071 (16.8% migrants) PWH constituted the pandemic and the historical period population, respectively. Proportion of PWH defined as LTFU in the pandemic period was 10.5% in native and 19.6% in migrant PWH. After controlling for age, sex and geographical location of enrolling site, risk of temporary LTFU was higher for migrants than native PWH [adjusted odds ratio 1.85 (95%CI 1.54-2.22)] in pandemic period. In PWH contributing to both periods, LTFU was 9.0% (95% CI 8.3-9.8) in natives vs 17.0% (95% CI 14.7-19.4) in migrants during the pandemic. Instead, LTFU was 1.2% (95%CI 0.9, 1.5) in natives vs 2.2% (95% CI 1.3-3.1) in migrants during the historical period, with a resulting DID of 7.0% (95% CI 4.4-9.6).

CONCLUSIONS

A greater proportion of LTFU in migrant PWH was observed in both periods, which remained unaltered over time. Interventions to reduce LTFU of migrants are necessary.

Viewpoint on Human Immunodeficiency Virus Medical Care Retention Guidelines in the Coronavirus 2019 Pandemic Era and Beyond: Lessons Learned From Electronic Health Record Screening and Outreach

In this viewpoint, we discuss retention in care for people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and call into question the methodology used to characterize retention, as well as the definitions themselves. Optimal retention for people with HIV (PWH) is defined in multiple ways by major healthcare leaders in the United States, typically focusing on appointment attendance or laboratory work. Yet, these definitions rely on in-person encounters, an approach to care that is becoming less common due to the rise of telehealth visits, particularly in light of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Our recent work showed that relying on electronic health records to identify PWH who were not retained in care not only failed to capture the nuances of modern HIV medical treatment engagement, but also led to misidentification of patients' retention status due to limitations in the record system. As such, we recommend a reevaluation of how HIV medical care retention is defined and reported.